Why is it wrong to legislate morality in some circumstances, but perfectly acceptable to insist on legislation of morality in others?

It just depends on who is doing the legislating.
Sorry, I don't think there is a "logical" answer to that question.

... but I gave you a comment. :)

You pretty much shut all their potential arguements up back in the November post. However, I'm sure that being the well-trained moonbats that they are, they'd find something that in their mind disproved everything you said.

"But... but... but it's only morality when it's the Christian Repugnicans! When we do it, it's uh, um... (whisper)quick! gimme a word!(/whisper) civil rights! Yeah! Or maybe we're correct politically! Yeah! You non-PC Reich Wingers are eeeeeeeeeevil! Bush lied! I win!"

P.S.- did the whisper/non-whisper tags make sense?

Jeeze...
*shrugs*
That's a good one...
*scratching head*
Beats the hell outta me...
Maybe they ought to get their head and ass wired together and figure out exactly WHAT they believe in...

I'll take a stab at addressing this question. I meant to post a comment when you posed it initially, but I suppose time got away from me. As an accused liberal, I may be able to offer a different perspective.

Yes, I believe that it is not the government’s place to tell us what is morally right or morally wrong. But what about murder, rape, theft, and other crimes, you ask? Well, it is my belief that a chief role of the government is to maintain a stable, peaceful, ordered society in order to create a productive, dynamic environment in which every citizen is free to pursue his or her own happiness. Obviously murder, rape, theft, and other crimes are an obstacle to such stability, since even though they unfortunately make some people happy, they impinge on the mental and physical wellbeing of others and can lead to social disorder.

And this is my general philosophy about moral beliefs. Every person -- left, right, Rep., Dem., conservative, liberal -- should be allowed to pursue happiness and enjoy his or her own moral beliefs, but not to the point of denying other people’s beliefs or happiness. It may sound like an idealistic, ultra-PC, impractical way of living, but I’m convinced it can be successfully applied to the American society. Everyone should have a right to believe what they want to believe, but your belief, for example, should not be allowed to have any direct negative impact on my right to pursue happiness – because it’s your belief, not mine. Likewise, my moral beliefs should not directly impede your right to pursue happiness. I will address the four issues you brought up in your November post.

1. Same-sex marriage. Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage would ultimately be a moral decision, but it would not be a decision that directly hurts anyone. Heterosexuals would still be able to get married and condemn same-sex marriage. However, making it illegal does hurt the many committed gay and lesbian couples out there. For even though they are still free to believe what they want, they are denied the chance to pursue the marital bliss enjoyed by other citizens.

2. War. The same philosophy can be applied here. Legislating and pursuing war negatively impacts the lives of thousands of people, especially innocent civilians. Attempting to find a peaceful solution to conflict – in the aftermath of 9/11, for example – doesn’t necessarily hurt pro-war believers. And before you say, “It’ll let them attack us again,” it’s important to note that peaceful solution does not mean making the US vulnerable. There can still be increased border and transportation security without resorting to war. Neither to anti-war activists support terrorist activities. For even though the terrorists usually believe themselves to be morally right, their morals should not be allowed to deny others the right to pursue happiness.

3. The environment. Same principle. Everyone is free to believe what he or she wants, but big corporations that rampantly pollute and destroy natural resources, such as forests, are ultimately affecting people’s happiness by creating an unhealthy environment to live in. Increased pollution or deforestation could lead to increased health problems, like asthmas, or environmental disasters, like landslides. Yes, ultimately each side is simply espousing a different moral belief, but why should my happiness have to be compromised because of your beliefs? (Do “envirofascists” as you call them, compromise the happiness of others? Yes, when they resort to violent, radical means of expressing their views. A polluting corporation might argue that environmentalists impede their right to pursue money (and thus happiness), but in the end they’re still free to try to make money – just not at the cost of the health and wellbeing of others.

4. Abortion. This is the tricky one. Anti-abortionists argue that the woman’s pursuit of happiness is an obvious obstacle to the unborn fetus’ right to happiness. It’s tricky because there is conjecture over whether the fetus is conscious enough to feel pain, or to feel violated. It’s not fair to debate whether or not they have souls, the existence of souls is a religious belief. Ultimately, I believe that the fetus is not conscious enough to feel violated, at least not to the extent that a woman who is forced to bring a baby into the world is (and do spare me the moral highground of “Well, she shouldn’t have been having unsafe sex.” Again, I believe she can do whatever makes her happy, as long as it doesn’t violate the law or deny anyone else’s right to happiness). Like I said, it is somewhat tricky.

At the end of the day, your argument seems to be that everyone’s belief is based to some extent on some kind of moral grounding. If you believe that’s true, then what makes one person’s moral grounding more legitimate than another’s? You say anti-war activists are ultimately trying to legislate morality, which is true to a certain extent, but what makes the morality of pro-war activists more valid than theirs? Nothing. Everyone is entitled to believe what he or she wants to. But that belief should not necessitate the denial of other people’s right to pursue happiness. I think that makes sense. Do you?

Colin, you just proved my point. All those explanations were based on what you think is best for society, but some people believe differently, and it's necessary to legislate morality in order to decide whose beliefs become law. It may not be government's place to tell us what's morally right or morally wrong, but when the government makes something legal or illegal, there's usually some sort of moral reasoning behind it.

This post really doesn't deal that much with the issues you brought up, but let me briefly respond:

1. Same-sex marriage. Yes, legalizing same-sex marriage would ultimately be a moral decision, but it would not be a decision that directly hurts anyone. Heterosexuals would still be able to get married and condemn same-sex marriage.

Not necessarily. Putting the government stamp of approval on same-sex marriage could lead us down a slippery slope that prevents some people from having freedom of speech. The Bible has been classified as hate speech in Canada a couple times, for example. Some would argue that forcing people to recognize something they see as immoral does hurt them.

However, making it illegal does hurt the many committed gay and lesbian couples out there. For even though they are still free to believe what they want, they are denied the chance to pursue the marital bliss enjoyed by other citizens.

I really don't understand this argument. They're free to have any relationship they want, but because they can't call it marriage, it's somehow threatening their happiness? Why can't they just call themselves married, if all that matters is what they believe? This debate is about government approval, plain and simple.

2. War. The same philosophy can be applied here. Legislating and pursuing war negatively impacts the lives of thousands of people, especially innocent civilians.

But ignoring someone like Hussein allowed civilians to be killed by rape, murder, starvation, etc.

Attempting to find a peaceful solution to conflict – in the aftermath of 9/11, for example – doesn’t necessarily hurt pro-war believers. And before you say, “It’ll let them attack us again,” it’s important to note that peaceful solution does not mean making the US vulnerable.

When you're fighting against people whose entire existence revolves around killing non-Muslims, it usually does. After all, the people in the World Trade Center weren't threatening anyone.

There can still be increased border and transportation security without resorting to war. Neither to anti-war activists support terrorist activities. For even though the terrorists usually believe themselves to be morally right, their morals should not be allowed to deny others the right to pursue happiness.

See, you basically said that terrorists shouldn't be allowed to terrorize, but we shouldn't be allowed to go after them. We're dealing with brainwashed fanatics who think they'll be eternally rewarded if they murder as many people as possible. How is non-violence going to stop them? We tried the "law enforcement" approach for years, and they killed thousands of people.

3. The environment. Same principle. Everyone is free to believe what he or she wants, but big corporations that rampantly pollute and destroy natural resources, such as forests, are ultimately affecting people’s happiness by creating an unhealthy environment to live in.

Once again, that was the point of my post. You say that everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but as soon as you decide that some people aren't allowed to act on their beliefs, you've legislated morality.

Increased pollution or deforestation could lead to increased health problems, like asthmas, or environmental disasters, like landslides. Yes, ultimately each side is simply espousing a different moral belief, but why should my happiness have to be compromised because of your beliefs?

Why should their happiness be compromised because of yours?

(Do “envirofascists” as you call them, compromise the happiness of others?

That "envirofascists" line was supposed to be sarcastic.

Yes, when they resort to violent, radical means of expressing their views. A polluting corporation might argue that environmentalists impede their right to pursue money (and thus happiness), but in the end they’re still free to try to make money – just not at the cost of the health and wellbeing of others.

Like I've said, that may very well be a logical argument, but you can't tell me that someone's beliefs aren't being made law, so the point is the same: You can't tell people not to legislate morality if you believe that government should make some things illegal.

4. Abortion. This is the tricky one. Anti-abortionists argue that the woman’s pursuit of happiness is an obvious obstacle to the unborn fetus’ right to happiness.

Usually, we don't argue based on "pursuit of happiness." It's about responsibility. The woman chooses to put herself at risk for pregnancy, but the child doesn't choose to be there, so the woman should be responsible for dealing with the consequences.

It’s tricky because there is conjecture over whether the fetus is conscious enough to feel pain, or to feel violated. It’s not fair to debate whether or not they have souls, the existence of souls is a religious belief. Ultimately, I believe that the fetus is not conscious enough to feel violated, at least not to the extent that a woman who is forced to bring a baby into the world is

By that logic, it's okay to murder someone who is in a coma, since they aren't conscious and can't feel pain or feel violated. I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out. And in any case, the mother is going to go through a lot less trauma than the baby regardless of how conscious either one is. Abortion is a fatal procedure, you know.

(and do spare me the moral highground of “Well, she shouldn’t have been having unsafe sex.” Again, I believe she can do whatever makes her happy, as long as it doesn’t violate the law or deny anyone else’s right to happiness).

It's fine for you to believe that, but as soon as her actions result in the creation of a brand new human life, she is now resonsible for that life. Are you saying that killing a child doesn't violate its right to pursue happiness? It'll never grow up.

I just stumbled upon this blog. I don't agree with a lot of what's being said, but it's very well-written and fun to read.. so great job!

Everyone should be entitled to the pursuit of happiness, right? Nope. If I get my greatest joy from dropping preschoolers off a ten-story building, nobody (I hope) will rush to the defense of my civil liberties. What I'm doing is wrong, but by what standards?

If you go the religious route, then clearly my killing of the innocent is sinful/immoral and should be punished on those grounds. If you go the more secular route, it is illegal because I am causing a great deal of harm to others around me, and a society that allows its members to kill each other with reckless abandon cannot stand. As we are meant to be a secular republic ("under God" or not, we are supposed to be open to all religions no matter who they think "God" might be) that contains a number of religions that may differ in their beliefs, it seems clear that the smart route to follow is that of the ethicist who does not appeal to a higher being. Utilitarianism springs to mind, but that isn't necessarily the most appropriate philosophy for the job. What's important is that we appeal to an ethical system that doesn't rely on religion for its backing-- as you are fond of noting, logic would be helpful. I'm not suggesting that Christianity isn't logical. It is, given the truth of its premises. The problem is that a lot of Americans don't buy the same premises.

Anyway, it seems like we're using the term "morality" very loosely. Let's be more specific. We are, of course, supposed to be as ethical as possible in the implementation of laws. We want to do the right thing as it pertains to the creation and governing of a successful nation-state. Then there's religious morality, which has no place in government. Now, the two types will surely overlap at points-- I don't think that religion is evil by any means, even if some of its followers are-- but they do occupy distinct spheres of influence. Issues of homosexual marriage are not unethical in the secular sense, even if certain religions frown upon it. It just isn't something that the government needs to bother with. Abortion is more difficult to say, as it falls in that "overlap region" mentioned earler. I fall on the pro-choice end, but that's me.. I fully expect our government to reach a decision on that one, although I'm sure that the issue will be kept alive for many years since it's a valuable election tool.

The war on Iraq is not a moral issue in the religious sense, but it may very well be an ethical issue in the secular sense. I won't get into the whole WMD fiasco, but those folks who disapprove of the war believe that it is ethically wrong for a country to enter war on false pretenses. Saddam Hussein was clearly a terrible person, and Iraq will, in time, be better off without him. However, does this mean that we should invade and occupy every country that has a leader that we disapprove of? Is it practical? Is the loss of American life worth it?

I'm sure you can see what side of the fence I sit on, but my point isn't to say whether the war was right or wrong. Really, I think that lefties are wrong to call the war "Immoral" for the very reason that you have noted. However, as religious and secular movements have used the same word to mean two different things for so long, I think it's an honest mistake. It's not the hypocrisy that you suggest, though. It is never right to legislate "morality" as a religious group would define it. It is vital to the state to create and enforce ethical laws. I hope that makes sense.

I just looked at your November post and wanted to make one more clarification:

You give the dictionary definitions of morality, but then you pick the one that best suits your purposes (concerning "right" and "wrong") and run with it. This gives you the freedom to bounce back and forth between what "right" and "wrong" means to a Christian vs. what it means (or ought to mean) to a politician, then present it as evidence of left-wing hypocrisy. If you are going to critically discuss these issues, you can't keep switching the backdrop against which they are presented. The four definitions you presented do not necessarily coexist simultaneously, any more than my saying "Bob is storming around" would mean that he's simultaneously being furious and precipitating all over the carpet.

This might help to clear up the thrust of my last post. I hope the weather clears up out there!

I think people are reading too much into what I said here. The issue is that people who claim morality shouldn't be legislated have a tendency to try and force their own morality on others. I'm not saying that we shouldn't legislate morality; I'm just saying that people should be honest about it, rather than pretending that their beliefs are the only logical ones, while all other beliefs are just mindless dogma.

Also, DJ, there may be different definitions of morality, but if people who are against legislation of morality are actually against legislation of religious beliefs, why don't they just say that?

And furthermore, you seem to think that religious and ethical morality are mutually exclusive, when in fact, both can be based on reasoning and critical thinking. For example, most people, whether or not they're religious, believe that rape and murder are wrong. The religious people may believe that because their religion says so, but their religion also has reasons for telling them that. It's not like you can say, "Well, murder is wrong because...it's wrong." That's circular reasoning. Most beliefs have underlying justifications, regardless of their origin.

Finally, keep in mind that atheists/non-religious people can still be opposed to things like abortion and same-sex marriage, so the "religion" angle of these issues is often irrelevant anyway.

Morality is subjective. There are really no black-and-white answers to anything in politics. People want to get their own way, with a minimal amount of compromise.

Person X disagrees with what Person Y wants. Person Y is trying to legislate morality for Person X... and vice versa.

Colin, you just proved my point. All those explanations were based on what you think is best for society, but some people believe differently, and it's necessary to legislate morality in order to decide whose beliefs become law.

Yes, CD, that might be true, but just to reiterate, I said that the government should not legislate morality in a way that directly denies someone the right to pursue happiness -- unless the legislation is necessary to maintain social stability. I'm afraid I didn't see in your reply any reasonable proof that legislating so-called "liberal" moral values would deny anyone's right to happiness. Except in the case of the aborted baby, which is a debatable point.

...I said that the government should not legislate morality in a way that directly denies someone the right to pursue happiness -- unless the legislation is necessary to maintain social stability.

Once again, we still have a difference of opinion. Some would argue that legalizing same-sex marriage and avoiding war even when diplomacy fails will lead to social instability.

I'm afraid I didn't see in your reply any reasonable proof that legislating so-called "liberal" moral values would deny anyone's right to happiness.

People who don't believe in same-sex marriage would be forced to recognize it. People who think we need to kill terrorists wouldn't feel safe. Companies could lose money due to environmental policies, etc.

The right to pursue happiness isn't the litmus test of an effective policy. Human diversity makes that impossible.